Juliusz Chroboczek <[email protected]> wrote: > I would. ULAs are a goodness. Probably. I'm planning to add ULA > generation to shncpd at some future date, and perhaps even enable it by > default.
> The question is about the level of MUSTiness. I only see two reasonable
> possibilities:
> 1. ULA is SHOULD, and we cannot rely on their existence;
> 2. ULA is MUST, which puts an additional requirement on implementations,
> but allows us to rely on their existence except during reconvergence.
I think that you are parsing "SHOULD" in a way closer to "MAY".
SHOULD is really quite a strong statement. Someone violating a SHOULD does
so with the knowledge that they may break something else.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
